Opinion
Case No. 1:19-cv-01403-NONE-JDP
05-28-2020
MARK RAYMOND FRISBY, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA CITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's complaint was screened on February 26, 2020, and plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint within thirty days because he failed to state a claim. ECF No. 10. However, no response to the screening order or first amended complaint was ever filed.
To manage the docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines on litigants and requires litigants to meet those deadlines. When a plaintiff fails to comply with court-imposed deadlines, the court may dismiss the plaintiff's case for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) ("[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances."). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the court has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
The court will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with a court order. Plaintiff's failure to respond to this order will constitute another failure to comply with a court order and will result in dismissal of this case. Accordingly, plaintiff must show cause within thirty days of the date of entry of this order why the court should not dismiss his case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 28, 2020
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE No. 204.